Skip to main content

About your Search

20120926
20121004
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11
to get ahead of things, the plaintiffs here are attorneys, civil rights activists and others who are in regular contact with people overseas particularly people who might well be the subject of electronic surveillance by the federal government and they are challenging the law that allows electronic surveillance, this wiretapping because they're concerned that their case will be picked up. they're claiming to have standing to challenge this law because even though the surveillance might be directed overseas to people they're talking to get their dedication will get picked up in the course of that surveillance and so therefore they have the right to challenge it in court. that is the standing issue we we are dealing with. just to get to the merits for a minute, and the aftermath of the exposÉ in the mid-70's about various abuses in the intelligence community and in short in short is set up a system by which the executive branch would have to go to the court surveillance court here in d.c. and get permission when they wanted to do wiretapping for national security purpose to give s
with civil rights of the '60s. >> host: john is from illinois now. john is an independent. hi there. >> caller: hi. mr. johnson, the only problem i have is about the tax issue. and the reason why it's like -- the reason why i say that is, our taxes in this country have never been set at actually to be fair. what they were set up for originally was that the rich were supposed to pay the majority of their taxes in federal taxes, and the working class and the poor were supposed to pay most of -- the majority of theirs in home owners taxes, city and state taxes. and that has been all -- it's got everything out of sorts. my problem with what everybody calls a fair tax is, when you're on a fixed income, and these states are going to have to have such a high tax rate because the federal government is going to have such a lower one, that when anybody that is on a fixed tax rate goes in and buys a refrigerator, they cost $400, the lowest one they can buy, they have about $100 tax on the refrigerator. that is the problem. and the only ones it's going to hurt is people that are retired, people
these cases can be so big they can be exported. civil-rights concerned about cutting back on class-action. too expensive to litigate each case one by one. the justices in the comcast case will consider the question of how much judges should decide about the case before certifying and saying everyone can be in all the lawsuits together. do they have to figure route if all these people and have one theory of damages or have to look at whether there was a fraud or securities fraud case so there will be more in line of the wal-mart decision about class-action procedure? two tiny actions. people in college try to get text books that are not incredibly expensive. the supreme court has a copyright case about what happens with market goods. text books made overseas when sold at a lower price are imported to the united states. producer of that book or any other copyrighted material have a right to limit it coming into the united states and actually a body on the questions of when a lawsuit is moved. a very lawyer the the the the issue but those who are interested and are practicing lawyers there are fi
's civil rights, workers rights, or women's rights where people remember why unioners created. most of the world has no rex why it happened. you had to work 18 hours and never got overtime. you got paid a number you live in a town which you work. people don't understand where the value base came from. there is going to be an evolution or innovation in the movement. i see union doing all kinds of interesting thing. don't corporate affairs work they follow pension resources and they take their own money and create economic development. that's smart. looking how do i get economic activity get my folks. ensure my rate of return. do something to get the economy to move again. i think there's a lot of compelling unions that are think abouting it circhtly. to underestimate the kind of [inaudible] >> i would say one thing to watch political any in the jersey we come from a unionized state than a lot of states in the south. the union have different power and i think one of the things that is important to watch you saw it in wisconsin and you see in other places it's a growing system between
marriage equality, i think it is constitutionally guaranteed with the civil-rights of the '60s. >> host: john is the independent. >> caller: mr. johnson mr. johnson, the only problem i have is about the tax issue. our taxes have never been set up to be fair. originally for the rich to pay them majority of taxes in federal taxes and a working class or poor would pay the majority of there's of homeowners gomez city, and state taxes. my problem with a fair tax is we're on a fixed income. the states will have to have such a high tax rate because the federal government has such a low were one. if someone buys a refrigerator at $700 there will be the $100 tax. that is the problem. the only when it will hurt are the people that are retired, disability, and the things like that. otherwise i am in completely in line with you. i voted for ron paul. i voted for paul brown. i cannot remember what year he ran. i voted for ross perot once. i am very open-minded better watch things closely. >> host: thank you for calling. gary johnson and the reaction? >> guest: by going to a national consumption tax
when we will knock it as fast as we can. the weekly standard would agree with civil-rights the goal should be equality of opportunity, not the quality of result, so i think that if you are seeing -- and i don't know that the figures that you gave me are accurate it might reflect the fact that there's a republican primary going on or the fact that one party at that particular time is feeling the same standards the same journalistic standards more than another. you can infer that there are more criticisms of one side and another coming and i think this varies over time and the actual fact that if there is any bias on our part that is just a false logic. >> i don't know if some of those are complaints about republicans criticizing other republicans. it's certainly not 3-1 on our side >> other questions? >> i am keeping deborah hopping. >> addition with we've heard about people choosing to believe their side for their team because i count myself among them i don't think many voters believe being a lawyer is a disqualifying characteristic for a candidate. what is the benefit that you are
the decision about whether they would title a same-sex relationship a marriage, a civil union or domestic partnership. but the test for me is whether the legal rights and responsibilities that someone else has, they should be able to have those same legal responsibilities and rights that i have. >> moderator: i just want to pin you down though. do you believe in gay marriage in the same way that president obama felt the need to clarify his stand, recognizing the institution of marriage as being possible and, indeed, should even be legal between a man and a man and a woman and a woman? cain cain david, i'll go right to the end of my answer. i would let state legislatures because the rules and regulates about marriage have traditionally been state policy, i would let state legislators make the decision about whether they would accord that -- >> moderator: you're not prepared, you're not prepared -- kaine: let me finish. i would be fine if they did it and they labeled it marriage, civil union or domestic partnership. for me is test is, are people given the same legal rights and responsibilit
that right while taking position in a conflict in the country, speaking about syria, that is currently confronted with a civil war where of atrocities will always be committed by both sides. although of course i understand that those atrocities are greater than once are committed by -- and how do the respect that right in a situation of a civil war? >> it's not just accepting frederick it is essentially a position of the international world. helsinki accords to the u.n., but this isn't achievable in every country that we would like it to be right now. there are a lot of countries where you don't have those kinds of rights that we have good solid relations with china, like you mention, the largest in the world. so it is an aspiration and it is an aspiration that increasingly over time and over the last few years has become a reality. in sony parts of the world. so we keep pushing the aspiration forward, keep hoping that country after country when a group of people after another, will learn to live in peace, learn to build a representative form of government. i would like these represent
it was strengthening our economy that we defend the civil liberties and rights of every new hampshire citizens because we want to attract people of talent and energy to our states. that means defending our marriage equality law and making sure that women can chart their own destiny by making their own health care decisions .. i love the public debate between you and ovide lamontagne. has been on social issues. any that you disagree and, how much impact they have on the economy and the impact -- business of new hampshire? hassan: i was on a plan last spring and i sat next to a young man who recruits for a major new hampshire business. he was telling me how important the marriage equality law that we passed was to his recruiting efforts because young people were more interested in coming to new hampshire to work here because we were committed to treating all of our granite staters the police. similarly for women the ability to make their own decisions about when to have families, about what kind of balance they want to seek in the workplace, finishing school, all of those things relate to their ability
of principles that we agree with with pakistan on afghanistan. i think neither of us want to see the civil war. we should find that basis. the question people are struggling with right now with the right mechanism in the bilateral relationship, but the right mechanism to pull people together to find those things we have in common. anyone in the last month or six weeks there've been developments i'm not privy to but i sense i'm moving ahead. per your question is a good one. we don't have, to my knowledge, we have not achieved the kind of meeting of minds on afghanistan that were going to need for this process up to 2014 and beyond 2014 to address. so it is an open question i agree if there is a tough one, that is the. i'm an independent consultant and i have a couple of questions that pick up on other points that i believe you made. if i understood you correctly, you really suggesting that we start our relations when people share our values. i'm sympathetic to that idea. i wanted first to make a comment, which many of those people in some sense identified with our values or goals are at least s
in it's approach, and we believe it's not the right way to do it. if you look at precedence using the civil aviation organization for consensus building on international aviation issues, is it much more effective way to do this. we have been clear both on p the record, off the record, and at every level with our e.u. counterparts that this is unacceptable, that we do not support it. if you look closely at the reaction around the world, you'll see that we have a lot of other nations in concert with the united states who also believe the unilateral imposition of that emissions trading scheme is inappropriate. finally, there appears to be some recognition on the european side of late that there are real consequences for doing this. we will continue to press for the appropriate avenues for the resolution of an issue like this. we are continuing to make it clear that we have serious concerns and do not believe it should be implemented, and i think the consequences of the european union moving ahead unilaterally are much butter under by the e.u. these days. >> thank you. >> mr. chairma
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11